New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) threw an odd tantrum yesterday, blasting President Obama for the failure of the congressional super-committee. I ordinarily wouldn’t much care, but since the media loves Chris Christie, his complaints generated a fair amount of attention, and it’s probably worth taking a moment to set the record straight.

Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Part of the problem here is that Christie isn’t quite as smart as he thinks he is, and bombast can only go so far in covering up ignorance.

Did the administration say the president kept his distance from the talks because Obama knew the process was doomed to fail? No, the governor appears to have made this up. As for what the president has been “doing, exactly,” Obama’s the one who’s offered Republican lawmakers a series of overly-generous debt reduction plans — to the chagrin of his own party — only to see the GOP reject every proposal.

Is Christie not aware of this? If so, why did he try to deceive the public yesterday? If not, shouldn’t he have gotten his facts straight before popping off to the press?

The New Jersey governor added that he’s “astonished” that the president “refuses” to just call people into a room and solve problems. This is the kind of criticism the media finds compelling, but which is nevertheless idiotic.

The president has tried every negotiating tactic that exists to get congressional Republicans to work on finding solutions. Obama has tried hands-on talks; he’s tried keeping his distance. The president has tried hard sells and soft sells, directly and indirectly. He’s made private appeals and public appeals. He’s made arguments based on policy, polls, and principles. He’s tried charm offensives, combativeness, and everything in between. He’s made partisan, bipartisan, tripartisan, and nonpartisan arguments, all in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, GOP leaders will be open to good-faith compromise.

And yet, nothing has worked. Nothing.

In the case of the super-committee, Republicans simply weren’t willing to compromise. They’ve admitted as much. GOP members of the panel made demands that no sensible person could possibly consider reasonable, and ultimately, weren’t intended to work towards a resolution anyway.

Does Chris Christie, or anyone else, think Republicans were going to be responsible because the president — the chief executive they loathe with a passion, and whose presidency they seem so desperate to destroy, that they’ll sabotage the nation’s interests — asked them to? Is there any scenario in which GOP officials were going to accept new tax revenue after the president asked really nicely?

The New Jersey governor seems to believe a debt deal would come together if Republicans and the president simply sat down for candid conversations. Given that Obama has already tried this repeatedly, without success, anyone who believes such stupidity just hasn’t been paying close enough attention.

Most of the Affordable Care Act won’t take effect for a few years — and if court rulings and the 2012 elections go a certain way, it may not take effect at all — but there’s already evidence that the reform law is having a positive effect.

Access to coverage for young adults between 19 and 25, for example, is quickly improving, and the law is also having a positive impact on slowing the growth in Medicare spending — a priority Republicans pretend to care about — as hospitals transition to a greater focus on value and efficiency, required under the ACA.

And this week, we’re learning that seniors are now better able to afford their prescription medications. (thanks to reader N.G. for the tip)

Medicare’s prescription coverage gap is getting noticeably smaller and easier to manage this year for millions of older and disabled people with high drug costs.

The “doughnut hole,” an anxiety-inducing catch in an otherwise popular benefit, will shrink about 40 percent for those unlucky enough to land in it, according to new Medicare figures provided in response to a request from The Associated Press.

The average beneficiary who falls into the coverage gap would have spent $1,504 this year on prescriptions. But thanks to discounts and other provisions in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law, that cost fell to $901, according to Medicare’s Office of the Actuary, which handles economic estimates.

A 50 percent discount that the law secured from pharmaceutical companies on brand name drugs yielded an average savings of $581. Medicare also picked up more of the cost of generic drugs, saving an additional $22.

This isn’t just some fluke — the reduced costs for seniors are deliberate consequence of the Affordable Care Act. It’s one of the reasons the AARP supported the law so enthusiastically.

It’s worth noting, of course, that if Republicans repeal the law, seniors will go back to paying more for their medicine, among the many other drastic punishments American families will face. Whether older voters will be aware of this, and whether they might base their votes accordingly, remains unclear.

The Democratic National Committee hit Mitt Romney pretty hard yesterday, launching the “Mitt v. Mitt” campaign and airing a new ad highlighting the Republican candidate’s shameless flip-flopping. Romney’s team offered a furious response, issuing a seemingly-endless stream of press releases, and hosting literally a dozen conference calls with reporters.

Most of the pushback avoided the substance of the DNC’s allegations. In fact, the Romney campaign spent most of the day accusing Democrats of trying to “tear down” the former governor, which I suppose is sort of true, but not exactly a compelling explanation for Romney’s allergy to principles.

Eventually, though, Romney’s team said the candidate’s positions were more nuanced than the DNC ad leads voters to believe.

“That was a blatant misuse of quote,” Romney Communications Director Gail Gitcho said in a conference call featuring New Hampshire supporters of Romney. “Democrats were blatantly taking that quote out of context.”

Oh, really. Is that so. The Romney campaign has discovered that it’s worried about proper use of context in a campaign ad.

It’s as dramatic a failure of self-awareness as anything we’ve seen in a long while. After all, the Romney campaign, in the most shamelessly dishonest ad of the year to date, aired a spot last week that deliberately wrenched an Obama quote from context — and then didn’t care after the campaign got caught deceiving the public.

And now Romney’s team wants to complain about context? Seriously?

Not only is the response breathtaking on its face, but the pushback isn’t even persuasive. Romney may have tried to fudge some of his earlier positions and leave himself some wiggle room, but there’s nothing dishonest about the DNC’s spot — Romney really has taken both sides of the abortion and health care debates, among many other issues.

In the meantime, the DNC released another video overnight, noting the reactions from the media and from New Hampshire voters to Romney’s attempts to deceive the public in his first ad of the campaign.

Herman Cain’s campaign was faltering anyway, but accusations from an Atlanta woman, who’s alleging a 13-year affair with the Republican presidential candidate, certainly won’t help.

The woman, Ginger White, made the disclosure in an interview with Fox 5 News in Atlanta, becoming the fifth person to accuse Mr. Cain of improper behavior. Ms. White is not, however, claiming that harassment took place. Rather, she described what amounted, in her words, to a romance.

“It was pretty simple,” Ms. White said. “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

Ms. White showed the news station some of her cellphone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to and from a number she said was for Mr. Cain’s private cellphone. The contacts were made during four different months — as early as 4:26 a.m. and as late as 7:52 p.m. The most recent were in September.

Hoping to get ahead of the story, Cain appeared on CNN yesterday afternoon to acknowledge the allegations, but insist that he did not have an affair. How does Cain explain the 61 times he contacted White? The Republican says he was “trying to help her financially.”

If that seems hard to believe, it’s because the explanation is hard to believe.

According to the accuser’s version of events, during Cain’s tenure at the National Restaurant Association — the same position he held when he was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment — he began an adulterous affair with White, including flying her to meet him at various events. The relationship reportedly ended about eight months ago, when Cain began moving forward with his campaign plans.

White says she came forward in part because reporters who’d heard rumors were beginning to contact her, and in part because of how Cain and his campaign had mistreated the women who accused him of sexual harassment.

The story took an awkward turn when Cain’s lawyer issued a statement that didn’t deny the allegations, but instead argued that it’s no one’s business: “This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults — a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public.”

This reinforced suspicions that the allegations are true, but it’s worth considering whether the lawyer’s statement has a point. There’s a reasonable case to be made that political candidates are entitled to some degree of privacy, and whether Cain engaged in a consensual, adulterous relationship is between him and his family. He wouldn’t be the first Republican adulterer to run for president, and the public has shown a fair amount of tolerance in this area. Politicians shouldn’t get away with sexual harassment — which directly speaks to a person’s professional conduct — but infidelity is quite different.

There are, however, some relevant angles to keep in mind in this instance. Part of Cain’s pitch to voters is that he’s a morally-righteous minister who celebrates traditional marriage. Bad judgment in one’s personal life is one thing; hypocrisy is another. Americans have shown far less patience for the latter.

What’s more, the question that I keep coming back to is why in the world Herman Cain even decided to run for president in the first place. He had to realize that the sexual misconduct allegations would surface eventually, which would prove humiliating to Cain and his family. He doesn’t seem to understand government or public policy; he’s never held public office at any level; he seems to have a Bush-like level of intellectual curiosity; and he appears to have a scandal-plagued personal life.

Cain realized all of this and decided to launch a presidential campaign anyway? What was he thinking?

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* In case you thought the relationship with Pakistan couldn’t get worse: “Pakistani officials said on Saturday that NATO aircraft had killed at least 25 soldiers in strikes against two military posts at the northwestern border with Afghanistan, and the country’s supreme army commander called them unprovoked acts of aggression.”

* All eyes on Merkel: “While Europe speeds toward economic meltdown, Germany increasingly stands alone in its resistance to slamming on the brakes. Many outside Germany now say that only radical solutions will keep the euro intact. But Chancellor Angela Merkel has steadfastly opposed a shift even as the crisis is in danger of spiraling out of control, potentially leading to a splintering of the currency union.”

* An extraordinary sight as Egyptians head to the polls.

* Fitch reaffirmed America’s AAA rating, but it’s outlook for our fiscal future is turning bleak.

* Off to a good start: “Spurred by aggressive promotions from retailers, American consumers opened their wallets over the holiday weekend in a way they had not since before the recession, setting records in sales and traffic.”

* Housing, too: “Sales of new homes rose in October and the supply of homes on the market fell to its lowest level since April of last year, showing some healing in the battered housing sector.”

* The Arab League targets Syria with economic sanctions, as the pressure on Assad intensifies.

* Iraq: “A suicide bomber slammed a car packed with explosives into the gate of a prison north of Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 19 people, Iraqi officials said.”

* Looking out for the public’s interests: “A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.”

* The Murdoch media scandal expands, with evidence that Rupert Murdoch “once offered to orchestrate friendly news coverage for a politician in exchange for a ‘no’ vote in Parliament.”

* Daniel Luzer takes a look at why a significant number of college students are so reluctant to take out loans.

* And on the 25th anniversary of the Iran-contra scandal, Peter Kornblu offers a reminder just how serious this fiasco really was, and how very fortunate Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were to avoid indictments.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Newt Gingrich raised some eyebrows recently when he said he intends, if elected president, to teach an online course. It’s worth pausing to appreciate the fact that Gingrich’s desire to teach while holding public office isn’t new.

In the 1990s, Gingrich taught “Renewing American Civilization” at Kennesaw State College in Georgia. The course became infamous because it was at the heart of a congressional ethics investigation that led to severe penalties for the disgraced former Speaker. But back in 1995, before the ethics scandal broke in earnest, the Washington Monthly ran a piece by Allan Lichtman that scrutinized Gingrich’s skills as a history professor.

Wouldn’t you know it, Gingrich had a little trouble keeping his facts straight here, too. He taught what Lichtman described as “fictionalized history.”

The thesis of Gingrich’s course is that American history was an uninterrupted continuity of opportunity and progress from colonial times until what he calls the “breakdown” of 1965. If you read the papers, you know what comes next: That’s when the elite liberal state, aided by the counterculture, introduced the infections of dependency, bureaucracy, and failure. He’s teaching the course in part to balance out the liberal’s view of the world. Did you know, for example, that Thomas Edison “is almost never studied in the counterculture because all his values are exactly wrong? He was successful, and he was very work-oriented, he was highly creative.” […]

Gingrich’s historical selectivity and outright errors are, well, revealing. He manages to get through the entire Civil War without ever mentioning slavery. Of the Declaration of Independence, he says “They originally wrote, ‘We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.”’ Property? John Locke, yes. The Declaration of Independence, never.

Not surprisingly, much of Gingrich’s course is preoccupied with the history of the welfare state-the “actively destructive” welfare state, that is. He doesn’t acknowledge any of the good that government has done over the past 30 years, when federal investments in education, electrification, research, and facilities built Gingrich’s modern South.

If Freddie Mac paid Gingrich $1.8 million for to take advantage of his expertise as a “historian,” I’m afraid the mortgage giant paid too much.

If students paid anything at all to take one of one Gingrich’s courses, I’m afraid they were charged too much, too.

When the global financial industry was unraveling in late 2008, the Federal Reserve was bailing out institutions, some of which claimed to be fine at the time, at an incredible pace, and making all kinds of emergency secret loans. Bloomberg Markets reports that, in a detail unknown before now, some of those banks actually made a profit, reaping an estimated $13 billion of income “by taking advantage of the Fed’s below-market rates.”

Matt Yglesias has a great item fleshing out what is and isn’t scandalous about these revelations. As Matt explained, it’s not necessarily outrageous that the Fed would intervene during a global panic. So what’s the problem? This is:

If I had fully understood what the Fed was doing in the fall of 2008 and the winter of 2008-2009, the truth is that I would have defended it all. Things were falling apart, and the important thing was for monetary policymakers to be engaged in an all hands on deck effort to prevent demand from collapsing and a years-long spell of mass unemployment. If the operational aspects of that get messy a bit “unfair” then so much the worse for fairness and cleanliness.

The real scandal has only emerged with clarity in the subsequent years. Having ensured the basic stability of the banking system, monetary policymakers in America proceeded to forget all about their go-getter attitude and ability to reach deep into the practical and legal toolkit in order to get what they want. We’re heading into the winter of 2011, with three years of mass unemployment under our belt and no end in sight. That’s not happening because the Fed was too generous with the free money for banks at the height of the crisis. It’s because once the acute phase of the banking crisis ended, suddenly we returned to small thinking and small-c conservatism. But it can’t be both. If in a time of crisis, the right thing to do is to get “crazy” then there’s plenty more crazy stuff the Fed could be doing to boost overall spending in the American economy. Or if the right thing to do is to stay orthodox and ignore the human consequences, then there was no reason not to stay orthodox three years ago and refuse to lend at anything other than a penalty rate.

Paul Krugman is thinking along the same lines.

What’s unforgivable is the way policymakers, both at the Fed and elsewhere, basically declared Mission Accomplished as soon as the panic in financial markets subsided and stocks were up again. When spring rolls around, we’ll reach the third anniversary of Ben Bernanke’s declaration that “green shoots” were making an appearance — and there will still be 4 million Americans who have been out of work for more than a year. Yet there has been no sense of urgency about dealing with unemployment; indeed, most of the elite conversation has been about stuff like cutting Social Security payments a decade or two from now.

It’s not exactly a secret that the bank bailouts are widely hated by the vast majority of Americans, and for good reason. That said, I know policymakers couldn’t allow the U.S. banking system to simply collapse, and I can also appreciate how much worse the crisis could have been if the entire financial industry was left to implode. We’re talking about the difference between a crisis in which unemployment reached 10% and one in which it reached 20% or higher.

But there’s simply no denying the fact that those Occupy activists waving “Where’s my bailout?” signs are raising an entirely legitimate question. Indeed, it’s hardly even rhetorical.

Kevin Drum’s conclusion, contrasting how the financial industry was treated vs. how the rest of us were treated, rings true:

Things like principal write-downs, second waves of stimulus, aid to states, and mortgage cramdown all got a bit of idle chatter but were then left to die. For some reason, it would have been unfair to hand out money to profligate homeowners, state and local workers, and the millions who have been unemployed for more than a year.

And yes, in some cosmic sense, perhaps it would have been unfair. Massive financial crashes always produce some inherent unfairness. For some reason, though, we were willing to overlook that unfairness when it was Wall Street that came begging, but became obsessed with it when all the rest of us came begging.

Tom Edsall had a fascinating item overnight, noting that white working-class voters have been steadily moving away from Democrats at the national level for many years, leading the party to adopt a new electoral strategy.

All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

The strategy is sound. For Dems, winning over many white voters without college degrees, especially men in this category, is a losing battle. There are easier, more realistic avenues to success by making up electoral ground elsewhere. The NYT’s headline on the Edsall piece reads, “The Future of the Obama Coalition.”

Dave Weigel, meanwhile, flags Fox’s item highlighting the same article.

In case you can’t quite make it out, Fox Nation’s headline reads, “NYT: Obama Campaign Plans to Abandon White Working Class.” The image shows President Obama waving while sitting alongside African Americans — at a basketball game, no less.

Sometimes Republicans use dog whistles, and sometimes they abandon subtlety and go straight for the siren.

For the record, the president isn’t talking about “abandoning” the white working class; his campaign is going forward with a strategy that wouldn’t target their votes as aggressively since they appear to be difficult to obtain. Indeed, Edsall reports, “The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010.”

The Fox headline wants to push the notion that the president will somehow be hostile towards the white working class. It’s not quite as racist as Fox Nation’s coverage of Obama’s 50th birthday party, but it’s close.

In response to the Democratic National Committee’s new “Mitt v. Mitt” campaign, David Frum generated some good discussion this morning with an interesting observation:

“How does DNC hope to sell idea BOTH that Romney believes in nothing AND that he’s an extreme right-winger?”

If this seems at all familiar, there’s a good reason — Dems were raising the exact same observation seven years ago. At the time, the RNC and the Bush/Cheney team hoped to sell the idea that John Kerry is on the both sides of every issue and John Kerry takes the far-left side of every issue.

Obviously, there was a contradiction, but it didn’t make much of a difference. The larger theme — voters shouldn’t trust Kerry — came through loud and clear.

That said, the Democratic message about Romney — the political world’s other “French-speaking elitist from Massachusetts” — strikes me as just a little different, and not at all contradictory. In this case, Dems really aren’t telling voters that Romney is “an extreme right-winger”; rather, they’re telling voters that Romney is taking extreme right-wing positions because he’s a craven, shallow politician who’ll say anything to get elected. The right-wing facade is just a persona, which is different from previous versions of Romney, and may well be different from future versions of Romney.

Frum may believe that Democrats will present Romney to voters as a loon who appeals to the Republicans’ unhinged base, but I don’t think that’ll be the Dems’ message at all.

Indeed, the focus on flip-flops is really just part of a far more important theme: trust, or in this case, the lack thereof. It’s about establishing a reputation for Romney, defining him by his weakness: the Republican candidate is a coward who’s afraid to lead, afraid to tell the truth, afraid of core principles, and afraid to be consistent. The point isn’t to make Romney out to be an extremist; the point is to make Romney out to be someone who is so lacking in a fundamental integrity, he’ll say anything to anyone to advance his ambitions, depending on how the winds are blowing at the time.

There was a curious story out of Kansas last week, about Gov. Sam Brownback’s (R) office wildly overreacting to a random tweet from a teenager. Today, it looks like the story was wrapped up to everyone’s satisfaction.

Let’s quickly recap for those just joining us. Emma Sullivan, a high school senior and a Democrat, visited the state capitol last week as part of a program for students interested in politics and government. After seeing the governor, Sullivan told her 60 Twitter followers, “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot”

It turns out, she hadn’t actually made any mean comments to Brownback; Sullivan was just joking around with her friends on her personal Twitter account. But the governor’s staff monitors social media, and Brownback aides were so offended by the teenager’s message that the governor’s office contacted event organizers about it. The student was soon told by her principal that she would have to write a series of letters of apology, including one to Brownback.

As of yesterday, Sullivan had decided to stand her ground. She told reporters that she has rejected her principal’s demand for a written apology, which Sullivan said would be insincere since she isn’t actually sorry.

Today, Brownback weighed in with a statement, and to his credit, the right-wing governor is the one giving, not getting, an apology.

Brownback submitted a statement Monday afternoon to Yahoo! News apologizing to the teen. “My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms,” he said.

Was that so hard?

Look, it stands to reason that in 2011, a governor’s office is going to monitor the media, and take an interest in social media. But when gubernatorial aides have been reduced to complaining about random tweets from teenagers, it’s time for them to reevaluate their priorities. I’m glad Brownback had the good sense to take the high ground and not to be so thin-skinned.

About a month ago, Andrew Sullivan asked, “Now that DADT is over, can the hysterics who warned it would destroy the military concede they were wrong?”

That would be nice. They were, after all, making all kinds of dire predictions, all of which have turned out to be baseless. One military leader in particular preferred to keep “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place, but now concedes that the post-repeal system is working just fine.

Gen. James F. Amos, the top officer in the U.S. Marines, says he is “pleased” at how smoothly the military branch has adapted to the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell — and top gay rights advocates agree.

Amos, who had publicly opposed the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, spent the past week in Afghanistan holding more than a dozen town-hall meetings with Marines, reports the AP, which had an exclusive interview with the Marine commander.

Not once during the sessions was he asked about the repeal, according to the wire service.

“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Amos said.

For Amos to be gracious about this after opposing the president’s policy only helps reinforce how mistaken Republican warnings were.

Thomas Ricks recently noted a major on active duty who raised a similar point.

At what point in time should journalists, bloggers, etc … hold those who made wildly inaccurate predications on the lifting of the ban accountable? All the retired generals and officers (LTG Mixon, Merrill A. McPeak and Col. Dave Bedey for example) who predicted that soldiers would leave the military by the thousands, or John McCain and other politicians describing how it would affect us as a fighting force?

At some point I feel that the public should be reminded of their predictions so the next time they make predictions that are way off the mark, fewer people will give them credence.

Some degree of accountability would be a refreshing change of pace, wouldn’t it?

Granted, the official end of DADT only happened a few months ago, and I suppose it’s still possible that God will punish the United States for this transgression with a series of meteors, but it’s not too soon to say the right’s anti-gay critics, led in large part by John McCain, had no idea what they were talking about. The dire predictions that said thousands of active-duty soldiers would quit the armed forces and recruiting would become nearly impossible were, we now know, entirely wrong.

New Hampshire’s Union Leader caused a bit of a stir yesterday when it announced its endorsement of Newt Gingrich’s Republican presidential campaign. And why did the conservative paper overlook Mitt Romney, who’s heavily favored among New Hampshire Republicans, and who has one of his mansions in the state?

Publisher Joe McQuaid told Fox News this morning that, conventional wisdom aside, he believes Gingrich would be a stronger general-election candidate. McQuaid argued, “I think it’s going to be Obama’s 99% versus the 1%, and Romney sort of represents the 1%.”

Ouch.

What’s especially interesting about all of this is McQuaid’s general aptitude for making the GOP case against Romney. With so many of Romney’s rivals giving him a pass so often, it’s apparently up to the publisher of New Hampshire’s largest newspaper to present Republican arguments to a Republican audience.

“We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job,” publisher Joseph W. McQuaid wrote. “In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich. He has the experience, the leadership qualities and the vision to lead this country in these trying times.”

In an apparent allusion to Romney, the publisher acknowledged that Gingrich is not “perfect,” but explained: “We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.”

In a Sunday CNN appearance, Union Leader editorial page editor Drew Cline put a sharper point on that criticism of Romney, calling the on-and-off Republican front-runner a “play-it-safe” candidate more suited for the presidency in the “late 19th century.”

Romney and his wife tried to win over McQuaid earlier this year with a charm offensive. The “tells us what he thinks we want to hear” line suggests the efforts failed.

But the larger point to keep an eye on here is the nature of the Union Leader’s critique. Romney is basing much of his campaign on a pitch that has practically nothing to do with character — he ran a business and a state, the argument goes, and he cares about competence. McQuaid wants Republican voters to dismiss this and consider broader principles — competence is irrelevant if we can’t trust the cowardly candidate, and leaders lacking convictions and a coherent vision aren’t leaders at all.

I still believe Romney is the presumptive nominee, but if Republican voters give the former governor a second look, and start considering the kinds of questions McQuaid is raising, Romney may have a serious problem for which there is no solution.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* In New Hampshire, the latest WMUR poll found Mitt Romney with a huge lead in the nation’s first primary state, enjoying 42% support. Newt Gingrich is a distant second with 15%.

* Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, announced on Friday that he will retire at the end of this Congress. Gonzalez is wrapping up his seventh term. State Rep. Joaquin Castro (D) appears likely to run in the Democratic district.

* Rick Perry’s campaign is using video that was also used by Perry’s Super PAC, which is raising legal questions about possible coordination.

* Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, will apparently throw his support to Perry’s presidential campaign.

* Is the Senate race in Arizona a pick-up opportunity for Democrats? It sure looks like it — a new survey from Public Policy Polling shows Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) leading former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona (D) by just four points.

* Don’t be too surprised if former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson drops his Republican presidential bid and runs for the Libertarian Party nomination.

* How worried is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) about being recalled? He’s already launched two separate television ads.

* A new court-approved district map in Texas will likely cost Republicans at least two U.S. House seats, and perhaps as many as four. State officials hope the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to block the new district lines.

* In Montana, a Republican attack ad targeting Sen. Jon Tester (D) manipulated an image; a Crossroads attack ad targeting Tester was pulled over inaccuracies; and a new U.S. Chamber of Commerce attack ad targeting Tester spelled the senator’s name wrong.

I’ve given up trying to figure out why Liz Cheney is such a prominent media personality. I continue to marvel, though, at the way in which her mind works.

Here’s the message the right-wing activist shared on Fox News yesterday:

“The president of the United States has put no serious plan on the table for dealing with entitlements [1], which is the biggest challenge that we face economically [2] right now.

“The president of the United States, I don’t think, made a single phone call to the people on the super committee [3]. I talked to one Republican member of the super committee who said he reached out numerous times to the White House to say, “We want a deal; we need a deal,” and was completely given the back of his hand [4].

“There was no effort here. The president basically seems to have made the calculation that he’s going to let the next 13 months of the American economy slide for the sake of his own, you know, political benefits [5].”

Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?

[1] In reality, President Obama has, to the chagrin of many on the left, offered Republicans all kinds of entitlement reforms over the course of the last several months. GOP leaders have rejected every offer, because they’re unwilling to compromise.

[2] Those who believe entitlements represent the nation’s biggest economic challenge are not to be taken seriously by anyone who values reality.

[3] Republicans pleaded with the president not to intervene in the super-committee process. Cheney is whining about Obama honoring the GOP’s wishes.

[4] Republicans didn’t want to strike an agreement; they’ve been quite candid on this point. A bipartisan deal would have required some tax increases; GOP lawmakers ruled out the possibility of tax increases; so the process collapsed. It’s not complicated.

[5] In Cheney’s mind, the president who’s desperately trying to improve the economy is secretly pushing to let the economy “slide,” on purpose, under the assumption that his re-election prospects will improve if the economy is worse. She actually seems to believe this, and was willing to say it out loud on national television.

Note to television producers everywhere: the next time you’re inclined to invite Liz Cheney on to share her, shall we say, insights, remember that her perspective on current events is more than a little twisted.

Postscript: Also note, by Cheney’s estimation, the failure of the super-committee necessarily undermines the economy. That’s not even close to being true, and it really doesn’t make any sense.